Szczątki zwierzęce z doliny Tygrysu i Eufratu z okresu neolitu przedceramicznego

Abstrakt

1 odstawą do niniejszej syntezy są wyniki analiz archeozoologicznych z 18 stanowisk leżących w dorzeczu Tygrysu i Eufratu (Tabela 1).1 Chronologia tych materiałów zawiera się od 10.000 do 5.400 lat BC to jest od 2 do 7 okresu (według podziału autorów ASPROHOURS et al. 1994). Większość stanowisk była zamieszkana w ciągu jednego okresu, ale niektóre trwały przez kilka okresów, co zwiększyło liczbę grup chronologicznych do 21. Rozpatrywano następujące zagadnienia: 1. Jakie gatunki ssaków były przedmiotem łowiectwa i hodowli ? 2. Czy występowały takie same gatunki jak współcześnie ? 3. Czy preferencje w zainteresowaniu pewnymi zwierzętami zmieniały się w miarę upływu czasu ? 4. Kiedy i gdzie pojawiły się formy udomowione ? 5. Jakie przypuszczalne czynniki warunkowały udomowienie ?<br>ANIMAL REMAINS FROM THE TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES VALLEYS IN PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC PERIOD. This work bases on the results of archaeo-zoological analyses from 18 archaeological sites located in the basin of Tigris and Euphrates rivers (Table 1). Chronology of the materials ranges from 10,000 to 5,400 years B.C. (from 2 to 7 period according to the classification made by the authors of ASPRO). Some settlements were inhabited over several periods, which increased the number of chronological groups to 21. The following issues were considered: A. Which species of mammals were hunted for and bred? B. Were there the same species occur as do today? C. Did preferences for species change with time? D. When and where did domesticated forms appear? E. Which factors influenced domestication? In the discussed materials 33 species of mammals, 25 species of birds and 6 species or representatives of families of fish were recognized. Numerous remains of reptiles (turtles and lizards) were also found. There were also remains of invertebrates: mollusks and crustaceans. Among mammals as many as 6 orders are represented (Table 2). Such multiplicity evidences small specialization in hunting and the ability to use a range of methods to hunt animals with diverse habitats and behaviour. Summarizing the review of the Neolithic mammal fauna appearing in the Near East we should stress that only small differences from the current distribution were observed. In the contemporary fauna two species of gazelles, ass, probably bison and of course aurochs are missing. The preferences of some species at individual sites were analyzed (Table 3). We should highlight the connection of hunting preferences to changing economic models, some of which remained stable for sustained periods. Four economical models can thus be identified: A. The second and part of the third Neolithic period i. e. from 10,000 to about 8,000 B.C. is characterized by hunting sheep, goat, gazelles and animals from Carnivora group, and sporadically boar and the representatives of Cervidae. Hunting is multidirectional, non - specialized, proving the ability to adjust to different biotopes, probably with application of rather simple techniques. B. The late phase of the third and early phase of the fourth period, i. e. from about 8,000 to about 7,200 B.C. is transitional period, with a decline in interest in Carnivora and gazelles, and increased in animals from Bos and Sus. C. From the fourth to the end of the fifth period, i. e. 7,600 to 6,400 B.C. hunting of goat and sheep was dominant while gazelles fell out of favour. D. From the end of the fifth period until the end of the seventh period, i. e. from 6,400 to 5,400 B.C. goat and sheep still play the most important role, closely followed by pigs and wild boar. The excavated sites showed domesticated forms of five species: goat, sheep, cattle, pig and dog (Table 4). The earliest domesticated animals appear at sites dated for the second period. At that time goats and probably sheep were already domesticated, with occasional reports of pigs and dogs. By the third period all the species characteristic of Neolithic of south-west Asia were already domesticated. However, this state does not remain stable throughout the studied period. Ongoing domestication may only be confirmed in case of goat and sheep, and that only between four to period seven. All other species are characterized by sporadic appearance of domesticated forms in different periods. On the basis of this analysis we may hypothesize that appearance of domesticated animals does not directly depend on the chronology of the site. Analyzing the ecological conditions of the sites we can conclude that the environment does not fully condition domestication and early breeding. It should be stressed that apart from the chronological and ecological factors we have to take into account big migrations and small peregrinations of human populations and also conservatism of lifestyle.